当前位置:主页 > 代写服务 > Essay代写 >

美国犯罪学essay代写_专业essay写作案例

Essay太多无法完成? Deadline期间论文成堆? 英国DueEssay论文代写为广大留学生提供高质量的论文代写服务, 严格按照论文要求完成, 100%原创无抄袭, 并提供免费TurnitinUK检测, 同时DueEssay承诺14天内无限修改, 直到您满意为止!

这是我们在2017年为美国普渡大学的学弟学妹们写的一篇犯罪学essay,开头首先介绍背景,自贝卡里亚提出威慑作为刑罚的合法目的以来,首先将目的分为普遍威慑和特殊威慑。普遍威慑是为了遏制未被合法惩罚的潜在犯罪分子。与通过直接身体和情感控制犯罪人的特殊威慑相比,全面威慑只能通过法律制裁间接影响心理学理性大众。从这个意义上说,普通大众对法律制裁的看法和反应程度会改变他们的行为,这决定了普遍威慑的效力。为支持这一声明,该文件同意Geerken所说的普遍威慑是一种信息传播机制。然而,信息传播存在障碍,因为并非所有的公众都能够在各方面受到约束而感知信息,除了大众传媒的信息仅仅有利于潜在的犯罪者改变他们的行为。因此,法律制裁有时与犯罪和累犯的频率和比率不成正比,这已被多项研究所证实。基于这一理论,第一部分将评估2011年英格兰骚乱与全面威慑的效果。它揭示了惩罚的确定性而非严厉性更多地是为了阻止潜在的罪犯。
essay代写
Since Beccaria(1986) put forward deterrence as the legitimate purpose of criminal punishment, Bentham(1780)had firstly divided the purpose into general deterrence and special deterrence. General deterrence is to deter potential offenders who have not been punished in legal. Compared with special deterrence that prevents recidivism by direct physical and emotional control to offenders (Braga and Weisburd, 2012), general deterrence can only indirectly impact the rational general public in psychology by legal sanctions. In this sense, the extent to which general public perceives and reacts to the legal sanctions thus change their behavior determines the efficacy of general deterrence. In support of this statement, the paper agrees Geerken and Gove (1975) that general deterrence is a mechanism of information transmission. However, there is an obstacle in information transmission because not all the general public can perceive the information due to constrains in various aspects, in addition to the information of mass media is merely beneficial for potential offenders to change their behaviors. Therefore, legal sanction sometimes is not in positive correlation with frequency and rate of crime and recidivism, which has been evidenced by several researches. Based on this theory, the first part will assess the efficacy of general deterrence combined with 2011 England riots. It reveals that the certainty of punishment rather than severity accounts more for deterring potential offenders (Pratt et al., 2006). Therefore, several findings display that legal sanction like imprison cannot realize general deterrence. Then the second part focuses on explain the reason in the perspective of individual perception towards informative punishment. In spite of the negative efficiency of general deterrence, it argues in the last part that general deterrence can still be a legitimate purpose of punishment to certain extent.

Body部分讲述内容,2011年8月6日,由于伦敦北部托特纳姆大都会警察局的一名黑人马克杜根枪杀,伦敦开始发生一系列社会动荡。 之后,家人和社区大约200人抗议警察暴行。 2011年8月9日,骚乱蔓延到英格兰的主要城市,包括伯明翰,利物浦,利兹和布里斯托尔。 这是自1995年布里克斯顿骚乱以来最严重的骚乱,也是1940年9月7日伦敦爆炸事件发生以来,纳粹德国在WII期间实施的暴乱最多的骚乱。 因此,骚乱引起了包括总理在内的整个英格兰的关注。

On August 6, 2011, a series of social unrest began in London due to a black Mark Duggan shot dead by the Metropolitan Police officer in Tottenham, north London. Afterwards, the family and community about 200 people protested against the police atrocity. On August 9, 2011, the riots spread to major cities in England, including Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds and Bristol. It was the most severe riots since Brixton riots in 1995, and also the riots involving the largest population since London bombing on September 7, 1940 implemented by Nazi Germany during WII. Therefore, the riots attracted attention of the whole England including the Prime Minister Cameron. By 20 August, BBC reported that more than 2,000 people related to the riots had been arrested[1]. Among them, offenders of violent disorder, robbery, burglary and criminal damage were imposed more than five years detention, which could be described as “greatest possible seriousness” (Colley, 2012). Moreover, the precipitate detention directly led to the prison was over-crowed. Although the court insisted the necessity and obligation to do so in order to protect and deter the general public, the legal sanctions imposed to the offenders were criticized in various aspects. On the one hand, the government represented by Prime Minister Cameron highlighted that the riots was not a social issue but a crime issue. Under the context, it seemed to be fair to impose detention to offenders who committed violent disorder, robbery, burglary and criminal damage. However, the riots was associated closely with the complex social and economic causes such as racial tensions, unemployment, juvenile violent, etc., and there were a number of juvenile offences. In that case, the indiscriminate and sever punishment violated the human rights.


  • dueessay03

猜你喜欢




微信客服